Bava Kamma 23

Chapter 23

א לבתר דנפק אמר להו עולא הכי אמר רבי אלעזר אפי' מיתמי אמר ר"נ אשתמטין עולא

1 After R. Nahman went out 'Ulla said to the audience: 'The statement made by R. Eleazar refers even to the case of heirs.' R. Nahman said: 'Ulla escaped my criticism'. A case of this kind arose in Nehardea and the judges of Nehardea1

ב הוה עובדא בנהרדעא ואגבו דייני דנהרדעא הוה עובדא בפומבדיתא ואגביה רב חנא בר ביזנא אמר להו ר"נ זילו אהדורו ואי לא מגבינן לכו לאפדנייכו

2 distrained [on slaves in the hands of heirs]. A further case took place in Pumbeditha and R. Hana b. Bizna distrained [on slaves in the hands of heirs]. But R. Nahman said to them: 'Go and withdraw [your judgments], otherwise I will distrain on your own homes [to reimburse the aggrieved heirs].'2

ג א"ל רבא לר"נ הא עולא הא רבי אלעזר הא דייני דנהרדעא והא רב חנא בר ביזנא מר כמאן סבירא ליה

3 Raba, however, said to R. Nahman: 'There is 'Ulla, there is R. Eleazar, there are the judges of Nehardea and there is R. Hana b. Bizna [who are all joining issue with you]; what authorities is the Master following?' — He said to him:3

ד א"ל אנא מתניתא ידענא דתני אבימי פרוזבול חל על הקרקע ואינו חל על העבדים מטלטלין נקנין עם הקרקע ואינן נקנין עם העבדים

4 'I know of a Baraitha, for Abimi learned: "A prosbul<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [G] i.e., an official declaration made in court by a lender to the effect that the law of limitation by the Sabbatical year shall not apply to the loans contracted by him; cf. Sheb. X. 4 and Git. 36a. V. Glos. ');">4

ה לימא כתנאי

5 is effective only when there is realty5

ו מכר לו עבדים וקרקעות החזיק בעבדים לא קנה קרקעות בקרקעות לא קנה עבדים קרקעות ומטלטלין החזיק בקרקע קנה מטלטלין במטלטלין לא קנה קרקע עבדים ומטלטלין החזיק בעבדים לא קנה מטלטלין במטלטלין לא קנה עבדים

6 [belonging to the debtor] but not when he possesses slaves6

ז והתניא החזיק בעבדים קנה מטלטלין

7 only. Personalty is transferred along with realty7

ח מאי לאו בהא קמפלגי דמר סבר עבדים כמקרקעי דמי ומר סבר עבדים כמטלטלין דמי

8 but not along with slaves."'6

ט אמר רב איקא בריה דרב אמי דכ"ע עבדים כמקרקעי דמי והדתניא קנה שפיר והדתניא לא קנה בעינן קרקע דומיא דערים מצורות ביהודה דלא ניידי

9 May we not say that this problem is a point at issue between the following Tannaim? [For it was taught:] 'Where slaves and lands are sold, if possession is taken of the slaves no title is thereby acquired to the land, and similarly by taking possession of the lands no title is acquired to the slaves. In the case of lands and chattels, if possession is taken of the lands title is also acquired to the chattels,7

י דתנן נכסים שאין להם אחריות נקנין עם נכסים שיש להם אחריות בכסף בשטר ובחזקה מנהני מילי אמר חזקיה דאמר קרא (דברי הימים ב כא, ג) ויתן להם אביהם מתנות רבות לכסף ולזהב ולמגדנות עם ערי מצורות ביהודה

10 but by taking possession of the chattels no title is acquired to the lands. In the case of slaves and chattels, if possession is taken of the slaves no title is thereby acquired to the chattels,8

יא איכא דאמרי אמר רב איקא בריה דרב אידי דכ"ע עבדי כמטלטלין דמי והדתניא לא קנה שפיר הא דתניא קנה בעודן עליו

11 and similarly by taking possession of the chattels no title is acquired to the slaves. But [elsewhere] it has been taught: 'If possession is taken of the slaves the title is thereby acquired to the chattels.'9

יב וכי עודן עליו מאי הוי חצר מהלכת היא וחצר מהלכת לא קנה וכי תימא בעומד והא אמר רבא כל שאילו מהלך לא קנה עומד ויושב לא קנה

12 Now, is not this problem the point at issue: the latter Baraitha9

יג והלכתא בכפות

13 maintains that slaves are considered realty [in the eye of the law], whereas the former Baraitha10

יד והתניא החזיק בקרקע קנה עבדים

14 is of the opinion that slaves are considered personalty? — R. Ika the son of R. Ammi, however, said: [Generally speaking] all [authorities] agree that slaves are considered realty. The [latter] Baraitha stating that the transfer [of the chattels] is effective, is certainly in agreement; the [former] Baraitha stating that the transfer [of the chattels] is ineffective, may maintain that the realty we require is such as shall resemble the fortified cities of Judah in being immovable. For we have learnt: 'Property which is not realty may be acquired incidentally with property which is realty11

טו התם בעומדין בתוכה

15 through the medium of either [purchase] money, bill of sale or taking possession.' [And it has been asked:]12

טז מכלל דהאי לא קנה כשאין עומדין בתוכה

16 What is the authority for this ruling? And Hezekiah thereupon said: Scripture states, And their father gave them great gifts of silver and of gold and of precious things with fortified cities in Judah.13

יז הניחא להך לישנא דאמר רב איקא בריה דרב אמי עבדי כמטלטלי דמי היינו דאי עומדין בתוכה אין אי לא לא

17 [Alternatively] there are some who report: R. Ika the son of R. Ammi said: [Generally speaking] all [authorities] agree that slaves are considered personalty. The [former] Baraitha stating that the transfer [of the chattels] is ineffective is certainly in agreement; the [latter] Baraitha stating that the transfer of the chattels is effective deals with the case when the chattels [sold] were worn by the slave.14

יח אלא להך לישנא דאמר עבדי כמקרקעי דמי למה לי עומדין בתוכה הא אמר שמואל מכר לו עשר שדות בעשר מדינות כיון שהחזיק באחת מהן קנה כולן

18 But even if they were worn by him, what does it matter? He is but property15

יט וליטעמיך להך לישנא דאמר עבדי כמטלטלין דמי למה לי עומד בתוכה

19 in motion, and property in motion cannot be the means of conveying anything it carries. Moreover, even if you argue that the slave was then stationary, did not Raba say that whatsoever cannot be the means of conveying while in motion cannot be the means of conveying even while in the state of standing or sitting?16 — This law applies to the case where the slave was put in stocks. But behold has it not been taught: 'If possession is taken of the land, title is thereby acquired also to the slaves'?17 — There the slaves were gathered on the land.18 This implies that the Baraitha which stated that the transfer of the slaves is ineffective,19 deals with a case where the slaves were not gathered on the land. That is all very well according to the version that R. Ika the son of R. Ammi said that slaves are considered personalty; there is thus the stipulation that if they were gathered on the land, the transfer is effective, otherwise ineffective. But according to the version which reads that slaves are considered realty, why the stipulation that the slaves be gathered on the land?

Previous Chapter Next Chapter